It's pretty clear he is saying in regards to visors he thinks it should be 100% a players choice. He made no claims about other sports or other protective equipment. Your post claiming he's saying NFL players shouldn't have to wear helmets has nothing to do with his statement.

You either misinterpreted what he was saying or misrepresented it just to argue. I'm not going to diagram it out for you any more than that so I suggest you drop it.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. He did not say "as far as hockey goes" and separate why hockey players should have the option of choosing to play with or without protective equipment. He stated "grown men playing a tough sport" as his basis for the visor being optional. So I called BS cuz I think that's a poor basis for reason. I think its the same one that caused goalies to go without masks and players without helmets. Its dangerous in my opinion. And I was the one saying "so NFL players shouldn't have to wear a helmet if they don't want to because they are grown men in a tough sport?". He never said that. I was responding to his reasoning and questioning it. That's all.

not to stray away from the NHL but it wasn't mandatory in NASCAR to wear what's called the HANS device until they lost Dale Earnhardt in 2001. Sure it was always an option and available, but drivers hated wearing it and drivers like Earnhardt and Tony Stewart among others refused to do so. Even after his death the device met with a lot of resistance, but today there isn't a driver who would think twice about NOT wearing it. NASCAR and US Motorsports just made it mandatory within all sanctioned stock events and the "kids" "grew up" using the device and now it is like second nature to them...even the old guys that were around before 2001 now have been wearing in for over a decade and it has become a part of their car, not just a cumbersome restraint system...

The same would happen with the NHL if they adopted the visor and Kevlar protection, it about 5 or so years, nobody would even think about what it was like without it...

who was it back in the early 90's that wore what looked like football shoulder pads with a protector that was behind his helmet? If I figure it out and find a picture, I will post it....I think he played for the Sabres, but am not sure....

This is a GREAT post. The only possible downside I've heard to the mandatory shields (grandfathering in is fine with me) is the "player safety" issue - some players claiming they don't have as much of a feel for their surroundings while using one. I don't buy it, since over 60% of the league already uses them, including highly skilled players.

But you're trying to tell me that that a HANS device in a racing car, which RESTRICTS HEAD MOVEMENT, is more of a nuisance than a visor in hockey?

Face protection is mandatory in basically every level of hockey BUT the NHL, it makes no sense.

These are grown men, 18+ most over 25. It should be there own decision on whether they wear a visor, if they get injured without one it is their fault. It is like riding a bike, a child should always have a helmet on, but adults should be able to choose if they were one or not, I personally do not like wearing a helmet, but I also don't ride on busy streets, mostly just leisure riding on bike trails. If an adult CHOOSES to put themselves in a position where they could suffer an injury, that is their own problem, not ours, or anyone else's place to dictate what they can or cannot do, just my opinion

When visors are 20/20 and enhance the players view, don't cut the player, don't scratch, don't fog up, don't collect water, then make them mandatory. Until then players can determine if they are lucky or not and how safe they wanna be.

I always go back to the seatbelt laws for automobiles. Sometimes people are too stubborn or stupid to know whats good for them and their safety has to be enforced with laws, or in this case, rules. The "Grown Men making their choice" argument is weak as a kitten in my opinion.

It's pretty clear he is saying in regards to visors he thinks it should be 100% a players choice. He made no claims about other sports or other protective equipment. Your post claiming he's saying NFL players shouldn't have to wear helmets has nothing to do with his statement.

You either misinterpreted what he was saying or misrepresented it just to argue. I'm not going to diagram it out for you any more than that so I suggest you drop it.

Exactly my point :-)

It is their choice, don't babysit them. Like you've mentioned, this is about hockey not about others ports. Hockey players are tough they know what they are doing and are smart enough, to be aware of the consequences.

I always go back to the seatbelt laws for automobiles. Sometimes people are too stubborn or stupid to know whats good for them and their safety has to be enforced with laws, or in this case, rules. The "Grown Men making their choice" argument is weak as a kitten in my opinion.

maybe but it is my opinion. You aren't talking about getting rear ended and being launched 20 feet through a car window into an on-coming semi truck. We are talking about a puck or stick to the face. Yes the risk is there but to compare it to the seatbelt argument is kind of a stretch IMO

maybe but it is my opinion. You aren't talking about getting rear ended and being launched 20 feet through a car window into an on-coming semi truck. We are talking about a puck or stick to the face. Yes the risk is there but to compare it to the seatbelt argument is kind of a stretch IMO

Oh I agree its a stretch and I seriously doubt that whether a player wears a visor or not would mean the difference between life and death (Like a seatbelt or helmet) but my point remains true. People are generally too stupid/stubborn to know whats good for them.

In particular I find this to be very true of hockey players. With the new sticks all players are shooting harder now which means there's less time for players to react to deflections and shots. Unfortunately I think were going to see more incidents like the Staal one.

Visors should be mandatory for all players entering the league. They're already use to them. There is not a single valid argument of why they shouldn't be mandatory. Players use to be against helmets, but sometimes you need to protect played from themselves.

^this. this is exactly what it would be if they put the rule into effect... if you're in the league already, you have the choice (again most choose them anyway).

Datsyukian

Dat·syu·ki·an [dat-soo-kee-uh n]

adjective

1. When your moves are so amazing and beyond reason, the only way to describe them is "datsyukian."

Marc Staals horrible injury last night has re-sparked the debate on whether visors should be mandatory in the NHL. I personally feel they should be because history shows that hockey players arent that smart or are very stubborn. I have played a lot of hockey and have worn a visor for years and dont feel it inhibits me in any way.

NHL players dont wanna wear visors, they wear shorter gloves exposing their wrists and forearms. Kevlar socks and armbands have been available for years and hardly anyone uses them. Neck protectors have been around even longer and I cant think of a single NHL who wears one yet EVERY single NHL player wear shin pads, protecting apparently the most vital of all body parts- The Shin.

My answer is a resounding NO!! These are grown men capable of making their own decisions. All of this fear mongering and obsession with safety that's further pussifying every aspect of society has got to stop. At this rate, we might wake up one day only to find that we are not allowed to leave our own house because of "what could happen".

Like life, there are certain risks involved with this sport. If you really think a rich, pampered athlete suffering from a stupid eye injury is such an atrocity then I suggest you pick up a history book, and read about the gladiators of ancient Rome.

If the players weren't employees being paid millions of dollars a year to work I'd agree that to some extent it's a personal choice. But let's be honest-- each of these guys represent a pretty sizeable financial investment by the individual owners and in the end it's reasonable to want to protect that investment. You can't tell your boss you refuse to wear a hard hat on the job site because it violates your personal liberty-- you're welcome to quit with your liberty intact but if they're paying you to work on site they have the right to require you to take reasonable safety precautions.

If the players weren't employees being paid millions of dollars a year to work I'd agree that to some extent it's a personal choice. But let's be honest-- each of these guys represent a pretty sizeable financial investment by the individual owners and in the end it's reasonable to want to protect that investment. You can't tell your boss you refuse to wear a hard hat on the job site because it violates your personal liberty-- you're welcome to quit with your liberty intact but if they're paying you to work on site they have the right to require you to take reasonable safety precautions.

Why not have not wearing a mouthgaurd, neckgaurd, kevlar socks, kevlar wristbands, visors, etc. be part of the insurace premium? That is, each playes insurance payment could be tied to their choice to wear certain safety equipment. AFAIK NHL contracts are not insured this way, but they could be altered to include this. Many employers now offer lower insurance payments for those within a certain BMI range, those who do not smoke, etc.

If the players weren't employees being paid millions of dollars a year to work I'd agree that to some extent it's a personal choice. But let's be honest-- each of these guys represent a pretty sizeable financial investment by the individual owners and in the end it's reasonable to want to protect that investment. You can't tell your boss you refuse to wear a hard hat on the job site because it violates your personal liberty-- you're welcome to quit with your liberty intact but if they're paying you to work on site they have the right to require you to take reasonable safety precautions.

I'm with the camp that says the more protection these guys have, the more risks they take.

I'm with the camp that says the more protection these guys have, the more risks they take.

Agreed, Ideally i'd like to go back to the leather/soft pads and we wouldn't have as lethal of hits, but much more bruising.

But for the here and now visors protect against very scary injuries, that would otherwise not be avoidable, it's not like you can position yourself better when you battle Hossa for a puck and get clipped in the eye(Berard), or take a redirect(Staal, Lidstrom etc.). The risk for wearing a visor far outweighs any "inconvenience" a player has, especially now that every player coming into the NHL is used to wearing them.

Fact is these players are worth a ton of money, it's not just about how they feel, it's about the risk the owner takes on giving money to a player that refuses to take a common safety precaution.

I always go back to the seatbelt laws for automobiles. Sometimes people are too stubborn or stupid to know whats good for them and their safety has to be enforced with laws, or in this case, rules. The "Grown Men making their choice" argument is weak as a kitten in my opinion.

Right, and after one incident these grown men need to be told what's good for them? That sounds like a bit of an elitist view if you ask me, something there is far too much of in our society these days. Everyone's trying to tell others what to do for "their own good".

The reason this accident made the news is because it very rarely happens. If it happened as often as some of you are implying then something would have been done about it years ago.

I think they should be mandatory. Somehow more than half of the players out there today have gotten used to them and still play just fine; it's time for the minority to get over it. You made it through juniors, college, minors, etc. with a visor; you can make it through the NHL, too. Injuries like Staal's are not common, no, but when it comes to people's eyes, they need to be planning for the worst case scenario. They're one of the few parts on your body that you really don't get a second chance with if the right turn of events comes along. I can maybe see grandfathering in some older guys who have never played with them, but other than that, I think it's something they really need to do.

That said, I'd like to see someone do a little engineering on the things...it sort of defeats the purpose when guys get cut by the edge of the visor. Maybe it's not completely fixable, but I'd like to see them at least come up with some ideas. Same with helmets. I don't expect them to completely cut out concussions with better helmet technology, but I've got to think SOME improvements could be made...that's a tangent for another time, though.

Visors should be mandatory for all players entering the league. They're already use to them. There is not a single valid argument of why they shouldn't be mandatory. Players use to be against helmets, but sometimes you need to protect played from themselves.

should be given the choice on helmets to. THEIR HEAD. Survival of the fittest is how life/business/sports work, Hockey used to be a sport for men f*** this safety s*** is getting silly. they make the choice to play the f****** game! Honestly If they want to die due to a hard hit who is the NHL to stop them as long as their not liable for compensation of injured players salary.

And if players didnt get paid while injured maybe they would stop ***** footing around.

Why does the visor seem to be such a symbol of freedom for many here? Hockey is a game that already is full of rules of what to do and what equipment to use. Now all of a sudden they stop being grown men if the use of a visor isn't their decision anymore.

With all the neanderthal macho stuff that's involved in hockey shouldn't the debate be about cups being mandatory?